This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
access-date
in absence of a URLfull date when the content pointed to by URL was last verified to support the text in the article; requires URL. Emphasis on the last sentence.
assist human editors in their workand not to shape the work. The Gnome ( talk) 08:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Should use of |access-date=
in citations (indicating the last date at which the source was checked as verifying the claims for which it was cited) be treated as an error and removed from citations that do not have a URL? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 04:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
|access-date=
in {{
Cite book}}
. This is a terrible idea. At this point, probably the outright majority of book citations (or at least new ones being added) are via Google Books or otherwise have a URL. The |access-date=
tells us something important: The date at which someone verified [or
indicated they verified] that the source cited is a source for the claim[s] appearing in front of that citation. This is one of the ways we can detect
WP:Citation hijacking. Keep in mind also that what is available at Google Books or some other site might change at any time; just because a snippet view with the content needed was visible on 29 March 2007 doesn't mean it is now. If someone goes to verify the claim and can't find it in the online material, they're apt to delete the claim or put {{
failed verification}}
on it, when it may in fact really be in that book, just not visible right now at that particular |via=
's URL. If the access-date is also from 2007 or so, this is an indicator that we may need to check the print source. If the access-date is yesterday, then it's probably sourcing falsification. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 19:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help). This is still arguably undesirable, because the date info tells us when someone looked at this data and confirmed it as sourcing the claim. I guess it's not a fatal problem, since it remains in the wikisource, but I've seen well-meaning but boneheaded gnomes remove it as "inapplicable" and it's tiresome to have to revert them again and again. Maybe the doc should be updated to say to leave the "silent parameter" there as an anti
WP:HIJACK tool. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 20:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
without the required URL parameter, and so forth and so on. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)|access-date=
exists to show when a web page was verified as supporting a specific claim. Since web pages can change, the access-date shows a diligent reader where to look at archive.org to check a source that may have changed since the access-date. Books, journal articles, and other sources that exist in a revision-controlled world (e.g. edition or version numbers are almost always explicitly changed when the document is changed) do not need an access-date, because they (presumably) do not change. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
|access-date=
makes no sense when there's no URL.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 00:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
|access-date=
(which is a wide issue worth debating properly), but you've phrased it as a question about a simple technical issue. The issue isn't |url=
or no URL, it's ephemereal source or not. --
Xover (
talk) 06:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)|url=
is empty, as the relevant "URL" might be one of the identifiers. I don't really care whether bots or AWB scripts keep or remove them.|access-date=28 July 2018
today, if someone finds a free link to the book in 2 years, and puts that up, then you'll have a wrong access-date suddenly display. There is zero benefit to anyone to know that Bob read a book on a specific date, it's the same book today as it was then. Access-dates only make sense you have url to go with them.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 12:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)|accessdate=
wouldn't help since it's still unknown what revision number is being referred to. In those cases, where revision matters, one should signify the ebook revision number.|access-date=
for immutable sources, or sources that change according to revision ID (see comment above). --
Green
C 14:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)I intend to update the live modules over the weekend of 29–30 September 2018
changes to Module:Citation/CS1:
hyphen_to_dash()
;
discussionchanges to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
|in=
as a |language=
alias|class=
not supported with oldest arxiv identifier format;
discussionchanges to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist:
|in=
|class
as basic parameter;
discussion|ASIN-TLD=
(uppercase version);
discussionchanges to Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers:
|class=
not supported with oldest arxiv identifier formatchanges to Module:Citation/CS1/COinS:
{{
cite magazine}}
to journal metadata;
discussion— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
cite.citation {
/* Reset italic styling set by user agent (only for cs1|2 templates; the
reason for the .citation qualifier) */
font-style: inherit;
}
q { /* Straight quote marks for <q> */
quotes: '"' '"' "'" "'";
}
citation-comment
is undefined so that editors may show or hide cs1|2 error messages using their own personal css (vaguely documented at
Help:CS1_errors#Controlling_error_message_display; and certainly not to turn error messages green.
{{
cite book}}
: Empty citation (
help). <- fixed, and the example above.
I have a reference whose correct publication date (according to JSTOR, changed only by conversion from hyphens to en-dashes) is "Fall–Winter 1988–1989". This results in a "Check date values" error message. How to format this date so that it is both accurate and non-complaining? (Noting in particular that "Fall 1988 – Winter 1989" would mean something different or at the least much more ambiguous, so is not sufficiently accurate.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
{{cite journal |title=Title |journal=Journal |date=Fall–Winter 1988}}
→ "Title". Journal. Fall–Winter 1988.|date=Fall–Winter 1988
.This is an arxiv-specific parameter, which is only useful when citing the preprints version. The only template that should support/display it is {{ cite arxiv}}, or {{ citation}} if no other identifiers are declared. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
|class=
be supported in {{
cite journal}}
when it has |arxiv=
? Isn't what you really want a restriction that rejects |class=
when |arxiv=
is not present? But isn't |class=
already ignored when |arxiv=
is not present?|class=
to be presented is when you cite the preprint as a preprint, since it gives you an idea of the moderation involved with it (general physics is the unfiltered shove-all repertoire where crank/junk ends up, although not all general physics is crank/junk). Once it's been reviewed, the version of record takes precedence over the arxiv version, so that information is pointless.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
to cite an arxiv paper? Because arxiv papers have not been published, there is no 'journal' or other periodical to tell {{citation}}
how to render |title=
. Without a periodical type parameter, {{citation}}
renders |title=
in italic font:
{{citation |vauthors=Abdurakhmanov UU, etal |title=Observation of Gaussian pseudorapidity distributions for produced particles in proton-nucleus collisions at Tevatron energies |arxiv=1807.01234 |class=nucl-ex}}
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |class=
ignored (
help){{cite arxiv |mode=cs2 |vauthors=Abdurakhmanov UU, etal |title=Observation of Gaussian pseudorapidity distributions for produced particles in proton-nucleus collisions at Tevatron energies |arxiv=1807.01234 |class=nucl-ex}}
{{citation}}
and |journal=<not set>
and |arxiv=<set>
then
|arxiv=
ignored{{citation}}
and |journal=<set>
and |arxiv=<set>
and |class=<set>
then
|class=
ignored{{cite arxiv}}
and |class=<set>
then
|class=
ignored{{citation}}
and |chapter=<set>
and |arxiv=<set>
and |class=<set>
then
|class=
ignored{{
citation}}
to cite an arxiv paper?" The only one I can think of would be for CS2 style (although here the title would be italicized, rather than quoted, and that's I believe wrong). I usually convert those to {{
cite arxiv|mode=cs2}}
when I can, so bots interact with them better. Also keep in mind that conference proceedings/book chapters can have arxiv links too, not only journals. |arxiv=
should never be ignored. |class=
should be, but only when the citation can be determined to be the version of record. IMO the best way to do that is to check for any other version-of-record identifiers in {{
citation}} (so not CiteSeerX or SSRN), and kill |class=
in any other {{
cite xxx}}
templates. Checking for journal/chapter would also likely be very efficient, so that could be certainly be a simpler alternative. I'd put this in a (hidden) maintenance category, rather than an (visible) error category.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 19:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
[The] title would be italicized, rather than quoted...Yeah, that's why I asked if using
{{
citation}}
to cite an arXiv preprint makes any sense. I don't think it does because the rendering is incorrect as is the template's metadata: &rft.genre=book
instead of &rft.genre=preprint
.version-of-record | not version-of-record | other |
---|---|---|
DOI,
HDL,
ISBN,
ISMN,
JSTOR,
PMC,
RFC, |
ARXIV, BIORXIV, CITESEERX, JFM, MR, OSTI, SSRN, ZBL | ASIN, BIBCODE, EISSN, ISSN, LCCN, OCLC, OL, PMID |
{{
cite newsgroup}}
Version of Record [1] | Preprints [2] | Other [3] |
---|---|---|
DOI, ISBN, ISMN, JSTOR, LCCN, PMC, PMID, USENETID, [4] RFC | ARXIV, BIORXIV, CITESEERX, SSRN | ASIN, BIBCODE, EISSN, HDL, ISSN, OCLC, OL, JFM, MR, OSTI, ZBL |
|
{{citation/new |arxiv=1705.01263 |class=hep-ph |title=Title}}
– no error message; {{
citation}}
used as a pseudo-cs2 version of {{
cite arxiv}}
(has malformed title)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |class=
ignored (
help){{citation/new |arxiv=1705.01263 |class=hep-ph |title=Title |journal=Journal}}
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |class=
ignored (
help){{citation/new |arxiv=1705.01263 |class=hep-ph |title=Title |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia}}
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |class=
ignored (
help){{citation/new |arxiv=1705.01263 |class=hep-ph |title=Title |chapter=Chapter}}
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |class=
ignored (
help){{cite web/new |arxiv=1705.01263 |class=hep-ph |title=Title |url=//example.com}}
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |class=
ignored (
help){{cite arxiv/new |author=Author |arxiv=1705.01263 |class=hep-ph |title=Title}}
– no error message because {{cite arxiv}}
and |class=
used properly
{{
cite arXiv}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)|class=
is a member of the basic_arguments
whitelist which makes it available to all cs1|2 templates. Because |class=
applies only to preprint sources, and only when |arxiv=
or |eprint=
is set, and because {{citation}}
does not render |title=
in the correct format without it also has a |work=
alias or a |chapter=
alias (both indicative of publication), I believe that there is no reason for {{citation}}
to act as a pseudo-cs2 version of {{cite arxiv}}
. Deleting |class=
from the basic_arguments
whitelist will give the Unknown parameter ... error without the need for special exception code.|biorxiv=
and |citeseerx=
where {{citation}}
will not correctly render preprints with these identifiers when |work=
or |chapter=
aliases are not set. Again, {{citation}}
should not be used as a pseudo-cs2 versions of the {{
cite biorxiv}}
and {{
cite citeseerx}}
templates. We have |mode=cs2
for that.there having been no further discussion, |class=
as a parameter accepted by all cs1|2 templates is deprecated. The special exception code in
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox is deleted.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
|class=
parameter whenever also using |arxiv=
in {{
cite journal}} or {{
cite conference}}. With the deprecation now implemented, the error shows up in prior issues of "Recent research" where it is triggered. I can probably clean that up without much trouble, since I am the only one who added them as far as I am aware. I am posting here, however, because I noticed something that might be relevant and worthwhile to consider. Your input is appreciated.Specifically, I often come across arXiv citations being formatted using {{
cite journal}}, likely because {{
cite arXiv}} is a far more obscure template among the CS1 templates and because it is far more restricted in its parameters. Many editors may also not understand why it matters to use the correct citation template, or otherwise think {{
cite journal}} is just the catch-all template one uses for scientific articles. I know the differences, but that is because I regularly cite in CS1, have spent many hours reading the documentation, and have experimented with the templates enough to understand them better than the documentation sometimes documents. That is likely not the case for some editors, especially those with only a basic grasp on MediaWiki markup.It is my understanding that |class=
has been deprecated in non-{{
cite arXiv}} CS1 templates because the purpose of that parameter is to provide some indication of "the moderation involved with" the preprint when citing "
the preprint as a preprint". Given that preprints are frequently cited as preprints using {{ cite journal}} or some other non-{{ cite arXiv}} CS1 template, does the current deprecation of
|class=
conflict with the whole purpose of using the parameter?Lastly, I apologize for having not brought this up earlier. As I said above, I only recently discovered this occurred due to the deprecation error message and I do not usually check this page (but probably should do so more often). —
Nøkkenbuer (
talk •
contribs) 20:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Given that preprints are frequently cited as preprints using {{
cite journal}} or some other non-{{
cite arXiv}} CS1 template, does the current deprecation of |class=
conflict with the whole purpose of using the parameter?
No. The cs1|2 templates are confusing; there are lots of them and there are even more parameters. The use of error messaging is one way to educate those who use these templates (because you know, even when it's good, no one reads the documentation – except perhaps you – and the cs1|2 documentation is only just marginally adequate). The purpose of |class=
is not to support improper use of the cs1|2 templates but rather, to lend credence to cited preprints using the only template that we have for that purpose. For a long time I have believed that |journal=
should be a required parameter for {{
cite journal}}
. That, to me just seems like a no-brainer. I did not get any traction with that idea when I last raised it. Imposing that requirement might address arXiv citations being formatted using {{ cite journal}}.
The documentation says
When set,work changes the formatting of other parameters: [...] location and publisher are enclosed in parentheses.
Recently, making this edit, I observed that this does not seem to be the case. My citation was:
{{cite paper|url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R44137.pdf|title=Naval Station Guantanamo Bay: History and Legal Issues Regarding Its Lease Agreements|date=November 17, 2016|work=[[Congressional Research Service]]|publisher=[[Federation of American Scientists]]}}
Producing:
"Naval Station Guantanamo Bay: History and Legal Issues Regarding Its Lease Agreements" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Federation of American Scientists. November 17, 2016.
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello all, this is something I've wondered for awhile and have not been able to find a consensus/answers to, but I was curious as to whether or not a publication should be recurrently linked within the reference section of an article. In other words, for example, if ref. 1 of an article is Entertainment Weekly, is it necessary to re-link the publication in subsequent references from the same work? I've personally avoided this as I find it to be obtrusive when looking at the reference section as a whole (far too many Wiki links to the same publication), but this could be a biased perspective given that I am a frequent editor—it may prove useful for casual readers to have immediate linked access to the publication when hovering over individual footnotes as they read. I am unsure about how to handle this. Thank you. -- Drown Soda ( talk) 20:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags in the text. But you may note that many articles will collect all these full citations into their own section.repeat linking" question is commonly seen in the form of "how to 're-use' citations". There are two ways to do this. Most commonly seen at WP is the use of "named-refs", where a note – typically containing a full citation – is made to appear in more than one place. This implies having each full citation in its own note, and is what leads to those irksome strings of note links (e.g.: [1][7][27][15]...).
subsequent references from the same work", "same work" implies a single source, and "subsequent references" thus suggests repetition of a single full citation. Which, as I explained at the outset, is wrong. Okay, so what you really meant (I gather) is wikilinking of data, such as the name of a publication, name of the publisher, place of publisher or publication, name of a work ("Encyclopedia Brittanica"), author's name, etc., that shows up more than once in a set of full citations to different sources. Well, that is good question; see below. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Can somebody please create a
CS1 maintenance error message for when the title of a citation template is "Archived copy
"? Since no webpage is named this, but we still have over 100,000 such hits (
Special:Search/insource:/title\=Archived copy/). This should be tracked and worked on, to replace with the real webpage title, manually or with a bot. (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 21:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
"Archived copy" is standard wording used by multiple tools/bots in the same situation of not being able to determine the title, so it's easy to track with a search. If users will tackle it manually or with AWB by all means create a tracking category. Ideally it would be done by a specialized title bot since there are likely endless edge cases to deal with when extracting title data. -- Green C 02:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
{{cite web/new |url=http://www.numa.net/expeditions/u-21_1.html |title=Archived copy |access-date=2 November 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081227004917/http://www.numa.net/expeditions/u-21_1.html |archive-date=27 December 2008}}
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)|archive-url=
is not set:
{{cite web/new |url=http://www.numa.net/expeditions/u-21_1.html |title=Archived copy |access-date=2 November 2008}}
@ Trappist the monk: - it appears "Archive copy" is also being used. -- Green C 12:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)<title>Story of the U-21 </title>
. Conveniently, this is also the cited web page's rendered heading. The documentation for {{
cite web}} is clear on this (
Template:Cite Web#Title). The fact that the encapsulating archive page has its own (html) title is irrelevant. The underlying archive is what is cited. The technical detail that this is an archived copy is handled elsewhere in the citation. The citation in question is not edited correctly, and "Archived copy" should not be used when the title is available.
108.182.15.109 (
talk) 14:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
<title></title>
. There was a title bot (forget name) that did this and left an inline comment the title was created by bot, and more often than not those titles need manual cleanup. For some reason the bot owner is no longer operating it. Point is, title bots are not trivial and require a fair amount of effort to watch over. It's beyond the scope of other bots and tools to individually create their own title bot routines, not even considering the network I/O overhead of polling each link when they might not otherwise need to. If you want to help by creating a title bot that would be awesome but not if it's pasting in title data blindly, it should be looking for edge cases and building up a system to detect and fix repeatable problems. --
Green
C 14:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
|language=
parameterWhen |language=
contains two values, in the output they are separated with " and "
.
{{cite book|title=Title |language=fr,de}}
When it contains three or more values the final two are separated with ", and "
.
{{cite book|title=Title |language=fr,de,it}}
There is not an option to modify or translate the separators in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration. However, it contains two local messages ['parameter-final-separator'] =
and ['parameter-pair-separator'] =
which would be useful in this case. Is it possible to enable these local messages in |language=
? I regularly update CS1 modules in el.wikipedia.
Αντιγόνη (
talk) 19:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
cfg.messages['parameter-pair-separator']
:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=fr,de}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=fr,de,it}}
['parameter-final-separator']
or equivalent syntax though. I omitted to mention earlier that in greek (el), perhaps in other languages too, comma is not placed before "and", not only in pairs but also in longer lists. Therefore, the correct output in greek would be:{{cite book|title=Title |language=fr,de,it}}
['parameter-final-separator']
or equivalent message would allow greater flexibility to satisfy both cases, with or without comma before "and", by modifing it accordingly.They are hyphens, not dashes. Pleas correct. — Mikhail Ryazanov ( talk) 09:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
In Russian Wikipedia, {{ cite journal}} is used mainly in translated articles. Its current ruwiki version is a slightly edited many-years-old version of the enwiki template. I was going to replace it with the current enwiki version based on the CS1 family of modules, but it turned out that along with many improvements it would cause some regressions. Here is a random sample of cite_journal transclusions in ruwiki; left — current ruwiki version, right — current enwiki version. As can be seen, there are 4 main issues:
The last point is particularly painful because the main problem with the current ruwiki version of this template is that it ignores parameters like first1, last1, etc. So we end up with not showing author lists when using either of the two versions (but in different cases).
Of course, it is the responsibility of the ruwiki community to deal with this issue. All I wanted to ask is an advice about the best way to deal with these regressions. Some bot run? Some config edits? Something else?
-- colt_browning ( talk) 12:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
|month=
and |year=
(if not also |day=
) can be botted to |date=
(as in, |date=(day) month year
). Others should probably be case-by-case fixes.|doi=
), having been accessed on that date, which is not the purpose of that parameter. Those cases can be botted. The others should be case-by-case cleaning.|coauthors=
is preferably split to |authorn=
or first/lastn. If that's a pain point (say your coauthors are separated inconsistently), |authors=
is also available.|coauthors=
, for example, was deprecated but still supported for a while, and then after a long while, support was removed entirely. I think that |month=
went through the same transition, but it's been a while. You'll have to look back in the edit history, where changes to the module pages and sandbox pages are listed in comments. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)|language=
to be Russian orthography or ISO 639-1 code (Latn script); instead of |language=French
, write: |language=французский
or |language=fr
. One of the things that I have thought to do is to tweak the language parameter code so that it first tests the language value against the local language list. If that fails ('French' not found in the ru.wiki language list), try again with the English language list. If you go ahead with this project, it will be a useful test-bed for this idea.|month=
and |day=
because too many date parameters are too many date parameters; because Lua is much more capable than parser functions and wikitext; because we had no need for such data granularity (and if we develop such a need, the component parts of a date can easily be extracted from a whole date). Editors here wrote AWB scripts that trolled through one or more of the error categories and rewrote |day=
, |month=
, |year=
into |date=
. Were it me, I would do the same at ru.wiki.|access-date=
with |url=
as a date that the citing editor confirmed that the source linked by |url=
supported the text our article. Identifier sources, doi, pmc, etc are 'permanent' so will not be changing unlike many web-based sources.|coauthor=
and |coauthors=
because cs1|2 produces COinS metadata; because too many author parameters are too many author parameters; editors here ignored the plural / singular distinction. COinS does not have support for multiple names in a single key/value pair – COinS expects the name of one author for each instance of &rft.au
so none of the authors listed in either of |coauthor=
and |coauthors=
was included in the metadata. For this same reason, the value assigned to the plural |authors=
is also not included in the metadata. Converting |coauthor=
and |coauthors=
to |authorn=
(not to |authors=
) required several AWB scripts (to find and fix the low-hanging fruit) and a lot of manual fixes. This is the most difficult of the tasks ahead of you because human names are endlessly variable as are the ways that editors choose to represent those names in cs1|2 templates.['help page label']
value so that general editors in the ru.wiki community who don't have English can understand what all of that red text means.There is a new stripmarker error in Template:Ford1922, a template that has not been edited for almost a year. Should this be fixed in the template or in the CS1 modules? Thanks. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 04:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
|postscript=
is the problem in each of these. I would guess these are also causing lint errors on their respective pages. --
Izno (
talk) 05:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Anyone know? May I add it? I would not have even known it was an option except saw the icon used and was digging around in the code. Are there other parameters that are excluded? Reason for those? Thanks, Peacedance ( talk) 21:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Renders as
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)Rather than
@ Trappist the monk:. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I have removed support from the sandbox module for |interviewers=
as
Category:CS1 maint: Uses interviewers parameter has been empty for some time (and spurred by a comment Ttm made when he added support for enumerated interviewers).
{{
cite interview}}
: Unknown parameter |interviewers=
ignored (
help){{
cite interview}}
: Unknown parameter |interviewers=
ignored (
help)The category can be deleted when the sandbox is next deployed. -- Izno ( talk) 04:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I encountered a very far-spread problem with the use of the "volume" parameter of this template. According to the docs, the parameter expects an entry like "Volume four", "Vol. 4", "Band VII", etc. If anything shorter than 4 characters is entered, this is printed in bold text in the citation, to mark the mistake.
Nearly all uses of the template seem to ignore this. The result is a host of Volume descriptors, that are nothing but bold printed numbers. This could lead to misunderstandings and confusion among users trying to find the cited journal article. For an impression of the extent of the mistaken use, look at Candide#Sources, for example. Or really any article citing lots of journals.
On IRC, Huon proposed to change the code so that a regular error message is produced instead of just bolding the too short entry. This would prevent future mistaken use. If considered important enough, perhaps the existing countless issues of mistaken use should also be fixed. 2.247.243.131 ( talk) 16:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
|volume=
values that are shorter than five characters.{{
cite journal}}
.FYI, I changed
Template:Philippine census reference to (1) call "Template:Philippine census reference/strip" to strip the templatestyles from the citation template output, and (2) add the templatestyles back outside of the reference tag. this is a total hack workaround for
T205803 which was triggered when templatestyles were added to
Module:Citation/CS1. clearly this is a fragile hack fix since it relies on the format and position of the ocins
(specified in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration) and the fact that the templatestyles is at the end. so, please let me know if you have a better solution or if
T205803 is fixed so I can undo my changes.
Frietjes (
talk) 16:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
{{ Inflation/fn}} was apparently broken by a change to Module:Citation/CS1 on 29 September. Can we revert it until we have a fix? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
{{
Inflation/fn}}
was not broken by the 29 September update to the cs1|2 module suite. Rather, the problem lies with the MediaWiki software. I said as much at
Template_talk:Inflation/fn#duplicate_reference_definitions, a discussion to which you both have contributed. This is not the place to fix a problem in the MediaWiki code. Reverting the last module suite update will not repair the underlying problem, only mask it.
—
Trappist the monk (
talk) 10:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
{{
Inflation/fn}}
produced duplicate reference definition errors. I learned of the problem on 30 September and on that day diagnosed the problem which caused you to open
phab:T205803. Also that day and on 1 October, developers at MediaWiki confirmed the problem. One of them created a fix that was uploaded for review on 14 October which some here believe will deployed 18 October.{{Inflation/fn}}
and to a handful of other templates. Still, the cs1|2 modules are used on about 3.8 million pages. For the vast majority of those pages, this problem is not a problem.This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
access-date
in absence of a URLfull date when the content pointed to by URL was last verified to support the text in the article; requires URL. Emphasis on the last sentence.
assist human editors in their workand not to shape the work. The Gnome ( talk) 08:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Should use of |access-date=
in citations (indicating the last date at which the source was checked as verifying the claims for which it was cited) be treated as an error and removed from citations that do not have a URL? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 04:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
|access-date=
in {{
Cite book}}
. This is a terrible idea. At this point, probably the outright majority of book citations (or at least new ones being added) are via Google Books or otherwise have a URL. The |access-date=
tells us something important: The date at which someone verified [or
indicated they verified] that the source cited is a source for the claim[s] appearing in front of that citation. This is one of the ways we can detect
WP:Citation hijacking. Keep in mind also that what is available at Google Books or some other site might change at any time; just because a snippet view with the content needed was visible on 29 March 2007 doesn't mean it is now. If someone goes to verify the claim and can't find it in the online material, they're apt to delete the claim or put {{
failed verification}}
on it, when it may in fact really be in that book, just not visible right now at that particular |via=
's URL. If the access-date is also from 2007 or so, this is an indicator that we may need to check the print source. If the access-date is yesterday, then it's probably sourcing falsification. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 19:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help). This is still arguably undesirable, because the date info tells us when someone looked at this data and confirmed it as sourcing the claim. I guess it's not a fatal problem, since it remains in the wikisource, but I've seen well-meaning but boneheaded gnomes remove it as "inapplicable" and it's tiresome to have to revert them again and again. Maybe the doc should be updated to say to leave the "silent parameter" there as an anti
WP:HIJACK tool. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 20:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
without the required URL parameter, and so forth and so on. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)|access-date=
exists to show when a web page was verified as supporting a specific claim. Since web pages can change, the access-date shows a diligent reader where to look at archive.org to check a source that may have changed since the access-date. Books, journal articles, and other sources that exist in a revision-controlled world (e.g. edition or version numbers are almost always explicitly changed when the document is changed) do not need an access-date, because they (presumably) do not change. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
|access-date=
makes no sense when there's no URL.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 00:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
|access-date=
(which is a wide issue worth debating properly), but you've phrased it as a question about a simple technical issue. The issue isn't |url=
or no URL, it's ephemereal source or not. --
Xover (
talk) 06:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)|url=
is empty, as the relevant "URL" might be one of the identifiers. I don't really care whether bots or AWB scripts keep or remove them.|access-date=28 July 2018
today, if someone finds a free link to the book in 2 years, and puts that up, then you'll have a wrong access-date suddenly display. There is zero benefit to anyone to know that Bob read a book on a specific date, it's the same book today as it was then. Access-dates only make sense you have url to go with them.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 12:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)|accessdate=
wouldn't help since it's still unknown what revision number is being referred to. In those cases, where revision matters, one should signify the ebook revision number.|access-date=
for immutable sources, or sources that change according to revision ID (see comment above). --
Green
C 14:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)I intend to update the live modules over the weekend of 29–30 September 2018
changes to Module:Citation/CS1:
hyphen_to_dash()
;
discussionchanges to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
|in=
as a |language=
alias|class=
not supported with oldest arxiv identifier format;
discussionchanges to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist:
|in=
|class
as basic parameter;
discussion|ASIN-TLD=
(uppercase version);
discussionchanges to Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers:
|class=
not supported with oldest arxiv identifier formatchanges to Module:Citation/CS1/COinS:
{{
cite magazine}}
to journal metadata;
discussion— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
cite.citation {
/* Reset italic styling set by user agent (only for cs1|2 templates; the
reason for the .citation qualifier) */
font-style: inherit;
}
q { /* Straight quote marks for <q> */
quotes: '"' '"' "'" "'";
}
citation-comment
is undefined so that editors may show or hide cs1|2 error messages using their own personal css (vaguely documented at
Help:CS1_errors#Controlling_error_message_display; and certainly not to turn error messages green.
{{
cite book}}
: Empty citation (
help). <- fixed, and the example above.
I have a reference whose correct publication date (according to JSTOR, changed only by conversion from hyphens to en-dashes) is "Fall–Winter 1988–1989". This results in a "Check date values" error message. How to format this date so that it is both accurate and non-complaining? (Noting in particular that "Fall 1988 – Winter 1989" would mean something different or at the least much more ambiguous, so is not sufficiently accurate.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
{{cite journal |title=Title |journal=Journal |date=Fall–Winter 1988}}
→ "Title". Journal. Fall–Winter 1988.|date=Fall–Winter 1988
.This is an arxiv-specific parameter, which is only useful when citing the preprints version. The only template that should support/display it is {{ cite arxiv}}, or {{ citation}} if no other identifiers are declared. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
|class=
be supported in {{
cite journal}}
when it has |arxiv=
? Isn't what you really want a restriction that rejects |class=
when |arxiv=
is not present? But isn't |class=
already ignored when |arxiv=
is not present?|class=
to be presented is when you cite the preprint as a preprint, since it gives you an idea of the moderation involved with it (general physics is the unfiltered shove-all repertoire where crank/junk ends up, although not all general physics is crank/junk). Once it's been reviewed, the version of record takes precedence over the arxiv version, so that information is pointless.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
to cite an arxiv paper? Because arxiv papers have not been published, there is no 'journal' or other periodical to tell {{citation}}
how to render |title=
. Without a periodical type parameter, {{citation}}
renders |title=
in italic font:
{{citation |vauthors=Abdurakhmanov UU, etal |title=Observation of Gaussian pseudorapidity distributions for produced particles in proton-nucleus collisions at Tevatron energies |arxiv=1807.01234 |class=nucl-ex}}
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |class=
ignored (
help){{cite arxiv |mode=cs2 |vauthors=Abdurakhmanov UU, etal |title=Observation of Gaussian pseudorapidity distributions for produced particles in proton-nucleus collisions at Tevatron energies |arxiv=1807.01234 |class=nucl-ex}}
{{citation}}
and |journal=<not set>
and |arxiv=<set>
then
|arxiv=
ignored{{citation}}
and |journal=<set>
and |arxiv=<set>
and |class=<set>
then
|class=
ignored{{cite arxiv}}
and |class=<set>
then
|class=
ignored{{citation}}
and |chapter=<set>
and |arxiv=<set>
and |class=<set>
then
|class=
ignored{{
citation}}
to cite an arxiv paper?" The only one I can think of would be for CS2 style (although here the title would be italicized, rather than quoted, and that's I believe wrong). I usually convert those to {{
cite arxiv|mode=cs2}}
when I can, so bots interact with them better. Also keep in mind that conference proceedings/book chapters can have arxiv links too, not only journals. |arxiv=
should never be ignored. |class=
should be, but only when the citation can be determined to be the version of record. IMO the best way to do that is to check for any other version-of-record identifiers in {{
citation}} (so not CiteSeerX or SSRN), and kill |class=
in any other {{
cite xxx}}
templates. Checking for journal/chapter would also likely be very efficient, so that could be certainly be a simpler alternative. I'd put this in a (hidden) maintenance category, rather than an (visible) error category.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 19:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
[The] title would be italicized, rather than quoted...Yeah, that's why I asked if using
{{
citation}}
to cite an arXiv preprint makes any sense. I don't think it does because the rendering is incorrect as is the template's metadata: &rft.genre=book
instead of &rft.genre=preprint
.version-of-record | not version-of-record | other |
---|---|---|
DOI,
HDL,
ISBN,
ISMN,
JSTOR,
PMC,
RFC, |
ARXIV, BIORXIV, CITESEERX, JFM, MR, OSTI, SSRN, ZBL | ASIN, BIBCODE, EISSN, ISSN, LCCN, OCLC, OL, PMID |
{{
cite newsgroup}}
Version of Record [1] | Preprints [2] | Other [3] |
---|---|---|
DOI, ISBN, ISMN, JSTOR, LCCN, PMC, PMID, USENETID, [4] RFC | ARXIV, BIORXIV, CITESEERX, SSRN | ASIN, BIBCODE, EISSN, HDL, ISSN, OCLC, OL, JFM, MR, OSTI, ZBL |
|
{{citation/new |arxiv=1705.01263 |class=hep-ph |title=Title}}
– no error message; {{
citation}}
used as a pseudo-cs2 version of {{
cite arxiv}}
(has malformed title)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |class=
ignored (
help){{citation/new |arxiv=1705.01263 |class=hep-ph |title=Title |journal=Journal}}
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |class=
ignored (
help){{citation/new |arxiv=1705.01263 |class=hep-ph |title=Title |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia}}
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |class=
ignored (
help){{citation/new |arxiv=1705.01263 |class=hep-ph |title=Title |chapter=Chapter}}
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |class=
ignored (
help){{cite web/new |arxiv=1705.01263 |class=hep-ph |title=Title |url=//example.com}}
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |class=
ignored (
help){{cite arxiv/new |author=Author |arxiv=1705.01263 |class=hep-ph |title=Title}}
– no error message because {{cite arxiv}}
and |class=
used properly
{{
cite arXiv}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)|class=
is a member of the basic_arguments
whitelist which makes it available to all cs1|2 templates. Because |class=
applies only to preprint sources, and only when |arxiv=
or |eprint=
is set, and because {{citation}}
does not render |title=
in the correct format without it also has a |work=
alias or a |chapter=
alias (both indicative of publication), I believe that there is no reason for {{citation}}
to act as a pseudo-cs2 version of {{cite arxiv}}
. Deleting |class=
from the basic_arguments
whitelist will give the Unknown parameter ... error without the need for special exception code.|biorxiv=
and |citeseerx=
where {{citation}}
will not correctly render preprints with these identifiers when |work=
or |chapter=
aliases are not set. Again, {{citation}}
should not be used as a pseudo-cs2 versions of the {{
cite biorxiv}}
and {{
cite citeseerx}}
templates. We have |mode=cs2
for that.there having been no further discussion, |class=
as a parameter accepted by all cs1|2 templates is deprecated. The special exception code in
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox is deleted.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
|class=
parameter whenever also using |arxiv=
in {{
cite journal}} or {{
cite conference}}. With the deprecation now implemented, the error shows up in prior issues of "Recent research" where it is triggered. I can probably clean that up without much trouble, since I am the only one who added them as far as I am aware. I am posting here, however, because I noticed something that might be relevant and worthwhile to consider. Your input is appreciated.Specifically, I often come across arXiv citations being formatted using {{
cite journal}}, likely because {{
cite arXiv}} is a far more obscure template among the CS1 templates and because it is far more restricted in its parameters. Many editors may also not understand why it matters to use the correct citation template, or otherwise think {{
cite journal}} is just the catch-all template one uses for scientific articles. I know the differences, but that is because I regularly cite in CS1, have spent many hours reading the documentation, and have experimented with the templates enough to understand them better than the documentation sometimes documents. That is likely not the case for some editors, especially those with only a basic grasp on MediaWiki markup.It is my understanding that |class=
has been deprecated in non-{{
cite arXiv}} CS1 templates because the purpose of that parameter is to provide some indication of "the moderation involved with" the preprint when citing "
the preprint as a preprint". Given that preprints are frequently cited as preprints using {{ cite journal}} or some other non-{{ cite arXiv}} CS1 template, does the current deprecation of
|class=
conflict with the whole purpose of using the parameter?Lastly, I apologize for having not brought this up earlier. As I said above, I only recently discovered this occurred due to the deprecation error message and I do not usually check this page (but probably should do so more often). —
Nøkkenbuer (
talk •
contribs) 20:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Given that preprints are frequently cited as preprints using {{
cite journal}} or some other non-{{
cite arXiv}} CS1 template, does the current deprecation of |class=
conflict with the whole purpose of using the parameter?
No. The cs1|2 templates are confusing; there are lots of them and there are even more parameters. The use of error messaging is one way to educate those who use these templates (because you know, even when it's good, no one reads the documentation – except perhaps you – and the cs1|2 documentation is only just marginally adequate). The purpose of |class=
is not to support improper use of the cs1|2 templates but rather, to lend credence to cited preprints using the only template that we have for that purpose. For a long time I have believed that |journal=
should be a required parameter for {{
cite journal}}
. That, to me just seems like a no-brainer. I did not get any traction with that idea when I last raised it. Imposing that requirement might address arXiv citations being formatted using {{ cite journal}}.
The documentation says
When set,work changes the formatting of other parameters: [...] location and publisher are enclosed in parentheses.
Recently, making this edit, I observed that this does not seem to be the case. My citation was:
{{cite paper|url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R44137.pdf|title=Naval Station Guantanamo Bay: History and Legal Issues Regarding Its Lease Agreements|date=November 17, 2016|work=[[Congressional Research Service]]|publisher=[[Federation of American Scientists]]}}
Producing:
"Naval Station Guantanamo Bay: History and Legal Issues Regarding Its Lease Agreements" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Federation of American Scientists. November 17, 2016.
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello all, this is something I've wondered for awhile and have not been able to find a consensus/answers to, but I was curious as to whether or not a publication should be recurrently linked within the reference section of an article. In other words, for example, if ref. 1 of an article is Entertainment Weekly, is it necessary to re-link the publication in subsequent references from the same work? I've personally avoided this as I find it to be obtrusive when looking at the reference section as a whole (far too many Wiki links to the same publication), but this could be a biased perspective given that I am a frequent editor—it may prove useful for casual readers to have immediate linked access to the publication when hovering over individual footnotes as they read. I am unsure about how to handle this. Thank you. -- Drown Soda ( talk) 20:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags in the text. But you may note that many articles will collect all these full citations into their own section.repeat linking" question is commonly seen in the form of "how to 're-use' citations". There are two ways to do this. Most commonly seen at WP is the use of "named-refs", where a note – typically containing a full citation – is made to appear in more than one place. This implies having each full citation in its own note, and is what leads to those irksome strings of note links (e.g.: [1][7][27][15]...).
subsequent references from the same work", "same work" implies a single source, and "subsequent references" thus suggests repetition of a single full citation. Which, as I explained at the outset, is wrong. Okay, so what you really meant (I gather) is wikilinking of data, such as the name of a publication, name of the publisher, place of publisher or publication, name of a work ("Encyclopedia Brittanica"), author's name, etc., that shows up more than once in a set of full citations to different sources. Well, that is good question; see below. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Can somebody please create a
CS1 maintenance error message for when the title of a citation template is "Archived copy
"? Since no webpage is named this, but we still have over 100,000 such hits (
Special:Search/insource:/title\=Archived copy/). This should be tracked and worked on, to replace with the real webpage title, manually or with a bot. (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 21:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
"Archived copy" is standard wording used by multiple tools/bots in the same situation of not being able to determine the title, so it's easy to track with a search. If users will tackle it manually or with AWB by all means create a tracking category. Ideally it would be done by a specialized title bot since there are likely endless edge cases to deal with when extracting title data. -- Green C 02:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
{{cite web/new |url=http://www.numa.net/expeditions/u-21_1.html |title=Archived copy |access-date=2 November 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081227004917/http://www.numa.net/expeditions/u-21_1.html |archive-date=27 December 2008}}
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)|archive-url=
is not set:
{{cite web/new |url=http://www.numa.net/expeditions/u-21_1.html |title=Archived copy |access-date=2 November 2008}}
@ Trappist the monk: - it appears "Archive copy" is also being used. -- Green C 12:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)<title>Story of the U-21 </title>
. Conveniently, this is also the cited web page's rendered heading. The documentation for {{
cite web}} is clear on this (
Template:Cite Web#Title). The fact that the encapsulating archive page has its own (html) title is irrelevant. The underlying archive is what is cited. The technical detail that this is an archived copy is handled elsewhere in the citation. The citation in question is not edited correctly, and "Archived copy" should not be used when the title is available.
108.182.15.109 (
talk) 14:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
<title></title>
. There was a title bot (forget name) that did this and left an inline comment the title was created by bot, and more often than not those titles need manual cleanup. For some reason the bot owner is no longer operating it. Point is, title bots are not trivial and require a fair amount of effort to watch over. It's beyond the scope of other bots and tools to individually create their own title bot routines, not even considering the network I/O overhead of polling each link when they might not otherwise need to. If you want to help by creating a title bot that would be awesome but not if it's pasting in title data blindly, it should be looking for edge cases and building up a system to detect and fix repeatable problems. --
Green
C 14:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
|language=
parameterWhen |language=
contains two values, in the output they are separated with " and "
.
{{cite book|title=Title |language=fr,de}}
When it contains three or more values the final two are separated with ", and "
.
{{cite book|title=Title |language=fr,de,it}}
There is not an option to modify or translate the separators in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration. However, it contains two local messages ['parameter-final-separator'] =
and ['parameter-pair-separator'] =
which would be useful in this case. Is it possible to enable these local messages in |language=
? I regularly update CS1 modules in el.wikipedia.
Αντιγόνη (
talk) 19:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
cfg.messages['parameter-pair-separator']
:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=fr,de}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=fr,de,it}}
['parameter-final-separator']
or equivalent syntax though. I omitted to mention earlier that in greek (el), perhaps in other languages too, comma is not placed before "and", not only in pairs but also in longer lists. Therefore, the correct output in greek would be:{{cite book|title=Title |language=fr,de,it}}
['parameter-final-separator']
or equivalent message would allow greater flexibility to satisfy both cases, with or without comma before "and", by modifing it accordingly.They are hyphens, not dashes. Pleas correct. — Mikhail Ryazanov ( talk) 09:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
In Russian Wikipedia, {{ cite journal}} is used mainly in translated articles. Its current ruwiki version is a slightly edited many-years-old version of the enwiki template. I was going to replace it with the current enwiki version based on the CS1 family of modules, but it turned out that along with many improvements it would cause some regressions. Here is a random sample of cite_journal transclusions in ruwiki; left — current ruwiki version, right — current enwiki version. As can be seen, there are 4 main issues:
The last point is particularly painful because the main problem with the current ruwiki version of this template is that it ignores parameters like first1, last1, etc. So we end up with not showing author lists when using either of the two versions (but in different cases).
Of course, it is the responsibility of the ruwiki community to deal with this issue. All I wanted to ask is an advice about the best way to deal with these regressions. Some bot run? Some config edits? Something else?
-- colt_browning ( talk) 12:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
|month=
and |year=
(if not also |day=
) can be botted to |date=
(as in, |date=(day) month year
). Others should probably be case-by-case fixes.|doi=
), having been accessed on that date, which is not the purpose of that parameter. Those cases can be botted. The others should be case-by-case cleaning.|coauthors=
is preferably split to |authorn=
or first/lastn. If that's a pain point (say your coauthors are separated inconsistently), |authors=
is also available.|coauthors=
, for example, was deprecated but still supported for a while, and then after a long while, support was removed entirely. I think that |month=
went through the same transition, but it's been a while. You'll have to look back in the edit history, where changes to the module pages and sandbox pages are listed in comments. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)|language=
to be Russian orthography or ISO 639-1 code (Latn script); instead of |language=French
, write: |language=французский
or |language=fr
. One of the things that I have thought to do is to tweak the language parameter code so that it first tests the language value against the local language list. If that fails ('French' not found in the ru.wiki language list), try again with the English language list. If you go ahead with this project, it will be a useful test-bed for this idea.|month=
and |day=
because too many date parameters are too many date parameters; because Lua is much more capable than parser functions and wikitext; because we had no need for such data granularity (and if we develop such a need, the component parts of a date can easily be extracted from a whole date). Editors here wrote AWB scripts that trolled through one or more of the error categories and rewrote |day=
, |month=
, |year=
into |date=
. Were it me, I would do the same at ru.wiki.|access-date=
with |url=
as a date that the citing editor confirmed that the source linked by |url=
supported the text our article. Identifier sources, doi, pmc, etc are 'permanent' so will not be changing unlike many web-based sources.|coauthor=
and |coauthors=
because cs1|2 produces COinS metadata; because too many author parameters are too many author parameters; editors here ignored the plural / singular distinction. COinS does not have support for multiple names in a single key/value pair – COinS expects the name of one author for each instance of &rft.au
so none of the authors listed in either of |coauthor=
and |coauthors=
was included in the metadata. For this same reason, the value assigned to the plural |authors=
is also not included in the metadata. Converting |coauthor=
and |coauthors=
to |authorn=
(not to |authors=
) required several AWB scripts (to find and fix the low-hanging fruit) and a lot of manual fixes. This is the most difficult of the tasks ahead of you because human names are endlessly variable as are the ways that editors choose to represent those names in cs1|2 templates.['help page label']
value so that general editors in the ru.wiki community who don't have English can understand what all of that red text means.There is a new stripmarker error in Template:Ford1922, a template that has not been edited for almost a year. Should this be fixed in the template or in the CS1 modules? Thanks. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 04:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
|postscript=
is the problem in each of these. I would guess these are also causing lint errors on their respective pages. --
Izno (
talk) 05:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Anyone know? May I add it? I would not have even known it was an option except saw the icon used and was digging around in the code. Are there other parameters that are excluded? Reason for those? Thanks, Peacedance ( talk) 21:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Renders as
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)Rather than
@ Trappist the monk:. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I have removed support from the sandbox module for |interviewers=
as
Category:CS1 maint: Uses interviewers parameter has been empty for some time (and spurred by a comment Ttm made when he added support for enumerated interviewers).
{{
cite interview}}
: Unknown parameter |interviewers=
ignored (
help){{
cite interview}}
: Unknown parameter |interviewers=
ignored (
help)The category can be deleted when the sandbox is next deployed. -- Izno ( talk) 04:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I encountered a very far-spread problem with the use of the "volume" parameter of this template. According to the docs, the parameter expects an entry like "Volume four", "Vol. 4", "Band VII", etc. If anything shorter than 4 characters is entered, this is printed in bold text in the citation, to mark the mistake.
Nearly all uses of the template seem to ignore this. The result is a host of Volume descriptors, that are nothing but bold printed numbers. This could lead to misunderstandings and confusion among users trying to find the cited journal article. For an impression of the extent of the mistaken use, look at Candide#Sources, for example. Or really any article citing lots of journals.
On IRC, Huon proposed to change the code so that a regular error message is produced instead of just bolding the too short entry. This would prevent future mistaken use. If considered important enough, perhaps the existing countless issues of mistaken use should also be fixed. 2.247.243.131 ( talk) 16:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
|volume=
values that are shorter than five characters.{{
cite journal}}
.FYI, I changed
Template:Philippine census reference to (1) call "Template:Philippine census reference/strip" to strip the templatestyles from the citation template output, and (2) add the templatestyles back outside of the reference tag. this is a total hack workaround for
T205803 which was triggered when templatestyles were added to
Module:Citation/CS1. clearly this is a fragile hack fix since it relies on the format and position of the ocins
(specified in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration) and the fact that the templatestyles is at the end. so, please let me know if you have a better solution or if
T205803 is fixed so I can undo my changes.
Frietjes (
talk) 16:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
{{ Inflation/fn}} was apparently broken by a change to Module:Citation/CS1 on 29 September. Can we revert it until we have a fix? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
{{
Inflation/fn}}
was not broken by the 29 September update to the cs1|2 module suite. Rather, the problem lies with the MediaWiki software. I said as much at
Template_talk:Inflation/fn#duplicate_reference_definitions, a discussion to which you both have contributed. This is not the place to fix a problem in the MediaWiki code. Reverting the last module suite update will not repair the underlying problem, only mask it.
—
Trappist the monk (
talk) 10:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
{{
Inflation/fn}}
produced duplicate reference definition errors. I learned of the problem on 30 September and on that day diagnosed the problem which caused you to open
phab:T205803. Also that day and on 1 October, developers at MediaWiki confirmed the problem. One of them created a fix that was uploaded for review on 14 October which some here believe will deployed 18 October.{{Inflation/fn}}
and to a handful of other templates. Still, the cs1|2 modules are used on about 3.8 million pages. For the vast majority of those pages, this problem is not a problem.